HP5+ and TriX 400

[Pieter12]

HP5+ rated at 160 has been the mainstay of my medium format photography for that past 3-4 years, and I have been happy with it. I recently came across a roll of TriX 400 that I had shot at 160 and was impressed by the smoothness of the tones as compare to the Ilford film. Both were processed in Rodinal.

No for the question that I have been considering: Is there any advantage of one of these films over the other, or just a matter of familiarity, availability and personal taste? Maybe certain subjects and lighting look better. I will be shooting a box of TriX 400 to see if I might prefer one over the other.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

HP5+ rated at 160 has been the mainstay of my medium format photography for that past 3-4 years, and I have been happy with it. I recently came across a roll of TriX 400 that I had shot at 160 and was impressed by the smoothness of the tones as compare to the Ilford film. Both were processed in Rodinal.

No for the question that I have been considering: Is there any advantage of one of these films over the other, or just a matter of familiarity, availability and personal taste? Maybe certain subjects and lighting look better. I will be shooting a box of TriX 400 to see if I might prefer one over the other.

in my experience, in replenished xtol, HP5+ is ever so slightly faster than tri-x, but in D-76 they are similar enough that you’d probably have a hard time telling them apart if you didn’t know which one was which ahead of time.

 

[Bormental]

I am not an expert, but I am good at reading manuals, data sheets and following instructions. HP5+ and Tri-X developed in DD-X using Ilford's recommended times couldn't be more different. Tri-X features higher contrast, lower grain and much more "pop". I gave up on HP5+ in DD-X and switched to Delta 400, which (despite what the internet says) looks a lot closer to Tri-X to me (again in DD-X using Ilford's times+agitation).

I have stopped shooting 35mm and decided to move away from DD-X. HP5+ in D76 looks lovely, at least in medium format, Adrian is right. Either HP5+ is a finicky film and works only with certain developers, or manufacturer's provided instructions were off, at least for DD-X. There's also possibility of my technique being garbage, of course! But it's highly unlikely since it wasn't a one-off thing.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I am not an expert, but I am good at reading manuals, data sheets and following instructions. HP5+ and Tri-X developed in DD-X using Ilford's recommended times couldn't be more different. Tri-X features higher contrast, lower grain and much more "pop". I gave up on HP5+ in DD-X and switched to Delta 400, which (despite what the internet says) looks a lot closer to Tri-X to me (again in DD-X using Ilford's times+agitation).

I have stopped shooting 35mm and decided to move away from DD-X. HP5+ in D76 looks lovely, at least in medium format, Adrian is right. Either HP5+ is a finicky film and works only with certain developers, or manufacturer's provided instructions were off, at least for DD-X. There's also possibility of my technique being garbage, of course! But it's highly unlikely since it wasn't a one-off thing.

Here's what HP5 in replenished XTOL looks like: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resou...plenished-xtol-for-7-30-at-24c-in-a-jobo.421/

And here's what 400TX in replenished XTOL looks like: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resou...plenished-xtol-for-7-30-at-24c-in-a-jobo.422/

HP5 eeks out just a tiny bit more speed and has a little lower contrast in the highlights. 400TX is a bit more contrast in the highlights but has an ever so slight shoulder starting at zone 9. In reality, you'd not ever really see it. Besides the speed difference, from middle grey down to film base plus fog, they're very similar, again, this is all in replenished XTOL.

 

[John Bragg]

I am not an expert, but I am good at reading manuals, data sheets and following instructions. HP5+ and Tri-X developed in DD-X using Ilford's recommended times couldn't be more different. Tri-X features higher contrast, lower grain and much more "pop". I gave up on HP5+ in DD-X and switched to Delta 400, which (despite what the internet says) looks a lot closer to Tri-X to me (again in DD-X using Ilford's times+agitation).

I have stopped shooting 35mm and decided to move away from DD-X. HP5+ in D76 looks lovely, at least in medium format, Adrian is right. Either HP5+ is a finicky film and works only with certain developers, or manufacturer's provided instructions were off, at least for DD-X. There's also possibility of my technique being garbage, of course! But it's highly unlikely since it wasn't a one-off thing.

I have never used DDX on account of poor economy. For me it is Ilfosol 3 for best quality and HC-110 for best economy. I'm moving to Ilfotec HC when my present HC-110 syrup is gone. (Which, given the dilution rate might be a while).

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I have never used DDX on account of poor economy. For me it is Ilfosol 3 for best quality and HC-110 for best economy. I'm moving to Ilfotec HC when my present HC-110 syrup is gone. (Which, given the dilution rate might be a while).

I really like Ifosol 3, but it still goes bad too quickly for my home use. I'd have to save up a bunch of rolls and use most of the bottle over the course of a few weeks instead of doing a roll here and there when I have the time during the evenings.

 

[John Bragg]

I really like Ifosol 3, but it still goes bad too quickly for my home use. I'd have to save up a bunch of rolls and use most of the bottle over the course of a few weeks instead of doing a roll here and there when I have the time during the evenings.

The key to longevity of Ilfosol is keeping it in air tight small bottles filled to the brim. I have had great success with 100ml medicine bottles. The ones that Calpol (infant tylenol) comes in are ideal. Brown Winchester glass and they are totally airtight. Any Pharmacist should be able to supply similar but mine come free with my 3 year olds medicine. Current bottle of Ilfosol is 3 months old and (divided this way) shows no signs of going bad. Plastic bottles are not good for storing anything that oxidises. Glass all the way for me.

 

[Lachlan Young]

in my experience, in replenished xtol, HP5+ is ever so slightly faster than tri-x, but in D-76 they are similar enough that you’d probably have a hard time telling them apart if you didn’t know which one was which ahead of time.

I've found that (much as the manufacturers' data suggests) - HP5+ tends to have a softer toe and a later shoulder than TX400 - and the spectral sensitivity is different. TXP320 and HP5+ are however somewhat closer in curve characteristics (at the toe at least). And of course at the printing stage, you can certainly make HP5+ look a little more TX-ish, but not identical. I'd tend to say that I've found Delta 400 is somewhat closer in tone curve behaviour to TX400 - at least in ID-11.

 

[Bormental]

Here's what HP5 in replenished XTOL looks like: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resou...plenished-xtol-for-7-30-at-24c-in-a-jobo.421/

And here's what 400TX in replenished XTOL looks like: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resou...plenished-xtol-for-7-30-at-24c-in-a-jobo.422/

HP5 eeks out just a tiny bit more speed and has a little lower contrast in the highlights. 400TX is a bit more contrast in the highlights but has an ever so slight shoulder starting at zone 9. In reality, you'd not ever really see it. Besides the speed difference, from middle grey down to film base plus fog, they're very similar, again, this is all in replenished XTOL.

Adrian, could this be the case of grey cards not telling the whole story? Or the superpowers of replenished Xtol distorting the reality? My experience is much closer to Lachlan's and your graphs do not agree. And for the record, your web site was the reason I wanted to like HP5+ so bad, it was much cheaper at the time and I generally like Ilford packaging better.

I thought I was going crazy for seeing what Internet posters are not seeing, namely:

• Tri-X and Delta 400 are interchangeable.
• T-Max 400 is flatter curve and much finer grain (not at all comparable to Delta 400)
• HP5+ is an artsy odd duck which renders either unbearable mud (DD-X) or interesting "charcoal paintings" in ID-11

 

[Lachlan Young]

Adrian, could this be the case of grey cards not telling the whole story? Or the superpowers of replenished Xtol distorting the reality? My experience is much closer to Lachlan's and your graphs do not agree. And for the record, your web site was the reason I wanted to like HP5+ so bad, it was much cheaper at the time and I generally like Ilford packaging better.

I thought I was going crazy for seeing what Internet posters are not seeing, namely:

• Tri-X and Delta 400 are interchangeable.
• T-Max 400 is flatter curve and much finer grain (not at all comparable to Delta 400)
• HP5+ is an artsy odd duck which renders either unbearable mud (DD-X) or interesting "charcoal paintings" in ID-11

To add my own subjective experience (mainly ID-11/ D-76, some Perceptol, Xtol, Rodinal, PQ Universal etc):

I'd not call Delta 400 and TX400 interchangeable, there are curve differences & distinct spectral sensitivity differences - one is clearly 'Kodak' spectral sensitisation, the other 'Ilford', but Delta 400 gets closer to TX in visual style than most Ilford films. This similarity also seems to contribute to people liking Delta 400 (especially in environments culturally conditioned to Kodak TX) because it seems to coalesce with their previous practices/ culturally accustomed apparent familiarity.

T-Max 400 and FP4+ have some degree of characteristic curve similarity (sharp toe, long straight line), but otherwise differ quite a bit (again, spectral sensitisation in particular).

HP5+ is capable of great beauty on a routine basis, but the two most important things I've found are: not to overdevelop it (relative to your aesthetic needs); and to generally key your exposure to the shadows (very simple to do). Does just fine (much better than fine) in ID-11 1+1 at 10-12 mins/ 20oC. That said, I've developed it in all sorts of stuff with excellent results - almost every time people get bad results with it, it's because of poor choices in exposure or processing time relative to their enlarger's light source.

 

[john_s]

I remember reading Geoffrey Crawley's articles some years ago comparing the 400 speed films. The conclusions are out of date, but his methodology was to attempt to develop each film to the same density and contrast and to try to make the best print possible from each film. Instead of just doing measurements. I mention this because it seems to be often overlooked: it's quite a job to adjust processing so that a fair comparison can be made.

 

[Bormental]

Last night I developed the 35mm roll of HP5+ in full-strength Xtol. Absolutely lo-o-o-ove the results! Lots of character, and very much not like Tri-X, feels like a painting almost.

Well, my persistence finally paid off. Why the hell I kept trying it in 1+1 dilutions or DD-X for so long... I have a bottle of replenished Xtol now, but something tells me it won't work as well. It feels like HP5 begs for high-contrast scenes and active and quick developer (how do you call the opposite of compensating?), so far I've gotten decent results with stock ID-11 and (spectacular!) with stock Xtol.

I am now considering getting a 100ft roll when my Delta 400 runs out.

 

[PinkPony]

Last night I developed the 35mm roll of HP5+ in full-strength Xtol. Absolutely lo-o-o-ove the results! Lots of character, and very much not like Tri-X, feels like a painting almost.

Might try it next time, I was not super happy about XTOL 1+1 with HP5. Only developer I have tried that really gels with this film is D76 1+1.

 

[john_s]

Years ago, Ryuji Suzuki (well known here years ago for developer formulas and other chemistry) wrote "HP5+ is a hungry film," a funny way to express that in his opinion it did better with undiluted developers.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Adrian, could this be the case of grey cards not telling the whole story? Or the superpowers of replenished Xtol distorting the reality? My experience is much closer to Lachlan's and your graphs do not agree. And for the record, your web site was the reason I wanted to like HP5+ so bad, it was much cheaper at the time and I generally like Ilford packaging better.

I thought I was going crazy for seeing what Internet posters are not seeing, namely:

• Tri-X and Delta 400 are interchangeable.
• T-Max 400 is flatter curve and much finer grain (not at all comparable to Delta 400)
• HP5+ is an artsy odd duck which renders either unbearable mud (DD-X) or interesting "charcoal paintings" in ID-11

dunno. The charts I made where with the same setup. That being said I’ve also looked at both of them in D-76 and even run both n D-76 at the same time in the past and had a hard time telling them apart in that developer.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Last night I developed the 35mm roll of HP5+ in full-strength Xtol. Absolutely lo-o-o-ove the results! Lots of character, and very much not like Tri-X, feels like a painting almost.

Well, my persistence finally paid off. Why the hell I kept trying it in 1+1 dilutions or DD-X for so long... I have a bottle of replenished Xtol now, but something tells me it won't work as well. It feels like HP5 begs for high-contrast scenes and active and quick developer (how do you call the opposite of compensating?), so far I've gotten decent results with stock ID-11 and (spectacular!) with stock Xtol.

I am now considering getting a 100ft roll when my Delta 400 runs out.

HP5+ is my standard general purpose 400 speed film and I run in replenished xtol all the time with very little to complain about. That being said, I also like 400TX and TMAX 400, but for very different reasons.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Years ago, Ryuji Suzuki (well known here years ago for developer formulas and other chemistry) wrote "HP5+ is a hungry film," a funny way to express that in his opinion it did better with undiluted developers.

I've noticed that. When I’m running it, I generally try to keep the total amount of replenished xtol In the tank to a minimum of 200ml per roll simply because it doesn’t seem to build as much density at the same development time if you have less developer per roll. This is something I’ve not noticed with other films.

 

[craigclu]

I've used HP5+ in medium format with my best success coming with PyroCat variants.... The negatives almost print themselves with great skin tones (that 3D look to facial features). It works so well that I've only occasionally run some Delta 400 or Tri-X and had good results but the HP5+ is especially nice and easy to work with when dealing with PyroCat and shooting at 240 with my gear and methods. FWIW, I've also used Xtol, DDX, Rodinal, Ryuji's brews and others but the HP5+/PyroCat is my go-to when I need to be assured of good printing sessions.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How do Tmax 100 and 400 compare with these?

 

[Bormental]

To be honest, T-Max films are the pinnacle of B&W film technology, in my opinion. The grain, the shadow detail, the resolution, everything is great and I was getting absolutely true-to-life images with both films. And this is, ultimately, why I stopped shooting T-Max 400: it produced images too similar to what I'd get from my digital SLR if I apply a "B&W film" preset in my RAW converter.

I was looking for answers in the data sheets and did not find them. T-Max 400 and Tri-X have very similar spectral sensitivity curves, for example. Ilford films are more "weird" this way: Delta 400 has extended sensitivity to red (people's faces are often more pale in it) and HP5's curve is more uneven. Perhaps it's about toes and shoulders? But those curves are prepared by manufacturers using their standard developing procedures, we all probably get a slightly different look using our developers and agitation methods.

Anyway, in my book the look goes from "normal/digital" to "more weird" this way:

digital -> T-Max -> Tri-X -> Delta -> HP5 -> Foma

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

To be honest, T-Max films are the pinnacle of B&W film technology, in my opinion. The grain, the shadow detail, the resolution, everything is great and I was getting absolutely true-to-life images with both films. And this is, ultimately, why I stopped shooting T-Max 400: it produced images too similar to what I'd get from my digital SLR if I apply a "B&W film" preset in my RAW converter.

I was looking for answers in the data sheets and did not find them. T-Max 400 and Tri-X have very similar spectral sensitivity curves, for example. Ilford films are more "weird" this way: Delta 400 has extended sensitivity to red (people's faces are often more pale in it) and HP5's curve is more uneven. Perhaps it's about toes and shoulders? But those curves are prepared by manufacturers using their standard developing procedures, we all probably get a slightly different look using our developers and agitation methods.

Anyway, in my book the look goes from "normal/digital" to "more weird" this way:

digital -> T-Max -> Tri-X -> Delta -> HP5 -> Foma

I understand what you're saying. Without starting a controversy, digital tends to seem too clinical and Tmax can approach it. It's one of the reason that when I got my new 4x5, first time shooting LF, I shot some Tmax 100 and Tmax 400 to see what I liked better. I do like the clean look of Tmax over something with more grain.

Can you tell the difference between the two?
Tmax 100 - the first three are 4x5 and the others are 120 https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...&tags=tmax100&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1
Tmax 400 - three 4x5's https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...&tags=tmax400&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1

 

[Bormental]

Alan, first of all, lovely images you've got there. BTW I've shown your Flickr a couple of times to people who complained about not living in Manhattan and not having anything interesting to photograph.

Also, I am surprised when medium/large format photographers talk abut grain. What grain? It's basically non-existent with ISO 400 films, especially with a limited resolution of a flatbed scanner. I do not use anything slower than 400 in MF for that reason.

I do not see much difference in character between two sets. There are mild variations in contrast, that can be easily explained by slight changes in lighting or/and your post-scanning adjustment to taste. Based on my (limited) success with HP5+ getting this exact look wouldn't be easy. Ultrafine Extreme 400, on the other hand, can render something similar:

Ultrafine Extreme 400 in stock ID-11

HP5+ (again, in my very limited experience) collapses shadows more abruptly than T-Max films and compresses the highlights, something I solved with stock Xtol. To my eye, most of my HP5+ shots look like it's cloudy. The one below, even though I like it, was done under high-contrast sunset lighting, yet it doesn't look like it:

HP5+ in stock ID-11

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, first of all, lovely images you've got there. BTW I've shown your Flickr a couple of times to people who complained about not living in Manhattan and not having anything interesting to photograph.

Also, I am surprised when medium/large format photographers talk abut grain. What grain? It's basically non-existent with ISO 400 films, especially with a limited resolution of a flatbed scanner. I do not use anything slower than 400 in MF for that reason.

I do not see much difference in character between two sets. There are mild variations in contrast, that can be easily explained by slight changes in lighting or/and your post-scanning adjustment to taste. Based on my (limited) success with HP5+ getting this exact look wouldn't be easy. Ultrafine Extreme 400, on the other hand, can render something similar:

Ultrafine Extreme 400 in stock ID-11
View attachment 249024

HP5+ (again, in my very limited experience) collapses shadows more abruptly than T-Max films and compresses the highlights, something I solved with stock Xtol. To my eye, most of my HP5+ shots look like it's cloudy. The one below, even though I like it, was done under high-contrast sunset lighting, yet it doesn't look like it:

HP5+ in stock ID-11
View attachment 249025

Hm... I just noticed stitching artifacts on this one. Will have to fix.

Nice shots. The first Ultrafine Extreme 400 does have the same characteristics of Tmax.

I have found that more grain shows up when I scan Tmax 400 over Tmax 100. That could be the Epson scanner. But it is noticeable if you look at my two sky shots.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Both are good films, but they each seem to be best in different developers. Here are my opinions:

Both look good in D-76 1+1.

HP-5 is better in PMK and Tmax Developer

Tri-X is better in Rodinal.

 

[Colin Corneau]

...
I have found that more grain shows up when I scan Tmax 400 over Tmax 100. That could be the Epson scanner. But it is noticeable if you look at my two sky shots.

I've often wondered about this myself. I use an Epson v700 to scan TMax 400 negatives -- it's a wonderful film but I do often wonder if there's as much grain in a print as there is in my scans.